Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade should grant the Commerce Department's voluntary request for a remand in an antidumping case, so the agency can review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses, seeing as it couldn't conduct an on-site verification, Commerce argued in an Oct. 18 brief (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00007).

RANCHO MIRAGE, California -- Lawyers are seeing a rise in cases filed against customs brokers for failing to meet their fiduciary duties, said Cameron Roberts, a Roberts & Kehagiaras trade attorney. Many of the cases involve importers who allege their brokers didn’t correctly advise them about issues related to forced labor, Section 301 tariffs and certain agriculture imports, he said. “All of these issues are being put at the foot of the broker,” Roberts said, speaking during the Oct. 15 Western Cargo Conference.

The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion to stay a case challenging the expansion of Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an Oct. 14 order, due in part to the defendant's likelihood of succeeding on appeal. Finding that a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion indicates DOJ's chances of success at the appellate court, CIT also stayed any resulting liquidation but noted that the fact pattern in the present case reads differently from that of the recent Federal Circuit case.

The Commerce Department found that a countervailing duty investigation respondent's U.S. customers did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in the investigation's final determination despite the Chinese government's continued failure to provide information, indicating a potential shift in how the agency will approach how it verifies non-use of the program.

The International Trade Commission granted four Curtis Mallet-Prevost lawyers access to a safeguard proceeding on behalf of LG Electronics, potentially ending a dispute at the Court of International Trade over denied access (see 2110130037) (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520). The ITC's one-page letter does not address larger issues in the case, such as the commission's power to deny access at all

Counsel for LG Electronics did not prove that the International Trade Commission's decision to deny attorney access to confidential information in a safeguard proceeding constitutes a final agency action, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if there existed a "speculative future basis for jurisdiction under prior case law," the LGE lawyers would have to show that the ITC secretary's actions resulted in ineffective or inadequate representation that resulted in an adverse determination, the brief said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The Commerce Department is sticking by its preferred methodology for determining surrogate financial ratios in an antidumping duty case following a remand from the Court of International Trade, the department said in Oct. 12 remand results submitted to the court. After CIT remanded the case to Commerce for its failure to address the concerns of the mandatory respondent, the agency returned with a more thorough backing of its surrogate financial ratio decision that it believes adequately addresses the respondent's concerns (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

Judge Timothy Reif issued lengthy remand instructions Oct. 12 to the Commerce Department over its application of adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, citing the scene in the movie Philadelphia in which Denzel Washington's character asks Tom Hanks' character to explain something to him as he would to a two-year old.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted two Alaska shipping companies' renewed bid for an injunction against CBP penalties for seafood shipments found in violation of the Jones Act, in an Oct. 10 order. After previously ruling against the companies since they hadn't fulfilled a particular part of an exception to the Jones Act, thereby failing to show a likelihood to succeed in their case, Judge Sharon Gleason ruled they now met this condition (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).